Timothy DeWayne Gardner v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Timothy Dewayne Gardner, was convicted by a jury in the Robertson County Circuit Court of possessing over 300 grams of cocaine with intent to sell. The petitioner received a sentence of seventeen years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for post-conviction relief, alleging that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied the petition, and the petitioner now appeals. Upon review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court. |
Robertson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Carey Ray Faught
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Carey Ray Faught, was found guilty of carjacking, a Class B felony. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to nine years. The trial court ordered Defendant's sentence for the current offense to be served consecutively to the sentence he was currently serving in case No. 71405. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the trial court erred in not granting his motion to suppress the victim's pre-trial identification; (2) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for carjacking; (3) that the trial court erred in sentencing Defendant above the minimum of the range for a Range I, standard offender, convicted of a Class B felony; and (4) that the trial court erred in ordering Defendant to serve his sentence for the current offense consecutively to his sentence in case No. 71405. After a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold L. Cassell
The defendant, Harold L. Cassell, entered an agreed plea to domestic assault, a Class A misdemeanor, and applied for judicial diversion, pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-313. The trial court imposed a sentence of 11 months and 29 days to be served on probation and denied the application for judicial diversion. On appeal, the defendant challenges the denial of judicial diversion. Upon review, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant judicial diversion. The cause is remanded for the imposition of conditions of the probationary term. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Harold L. Cassell - Dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion insofar as it places the defendant on judicial diversion. As set forth in the majority opinion, a trial court is obliged to consider a multitude of factors in determining whether to grant a request for judicial diversion. See State v. Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d 332, 343-44 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997); State v. Bonestel, 871 S.W.2d 163, 168 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1993), overruled on other grounds by State v. Hooper, 29 S.W.3d 1, 9 (Tenn. 2000). A trial court is further required to state on the record the weighing process it uses in balancing all of the factors and the calculus relied upon in reaching the ultimate conclusion. See State v. Electroplating, Inc., 990 S.W.2d 211, 229 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998). When the trial court follows this procedure and provides a comprehensive record of its decision-making process, then this Court should affirm the trial court’s ruling so long as there is any substantial evidence to support it. See Cutshaw, 967 S.W.2d at 344. However, it is only when the trial court satisfies its obligations in reviewing a request for judicial diversion that this Court is given the opportunity for meaningful appellate review. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Clayton Wilburn Eslick
The appellant, Clayton Wilburn Eslick, was convicted by a jury in the Marshall County Circuit Court of six counts of passing worthless checks. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of six years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Marshall | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Kenna Jean Parrott
Following a jury trial, Defendant, Kenna Jean Parrott, was found guilty of theft of property over $60,000, a Class B felony, and forgery of books and records valued at over $60,000, a Class B felony. The trial court sentenced Defendant as a Range I, standard offender, to eight years for each offense and ordered Defendant's sentences to run concurrently. The trial court ordered six months of the effective eight-year sentence to be served in jail, and the remainder of the effective sentence in Community Corrections. Defendant does not challenge the length or manner of service of her sentence. In her appeal, Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence. After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. James Austin
The defendant appeals his conviction for second degree murder on the grounds of (1) insufficient evidence to support the verdict and (2) the sentence, pursuant to Blakely issues. After review, we find sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The Tennessee sentencing structure is not impacted by Blakely, therefore, the sentence is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Wanda Joyce Drake
The appellant, Wanda Joyce Drake, pled guilty in the Cannon County Circuit Court to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of a weapon during a felony, and possession of methamphetamine. The appellant received a total effective sentence of two years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying probation. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Cannon | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Lacey Jones
The defendant, Lacey Jones, was convicted of four counts of especially aggravated kidnapping, one count of aggravated burglary, and two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court merged the aggravated robbery convictions into the convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and ordered a concurrent sentence of thirty-five years for each of the four counts. The trial court ordered the aggravated burglary sentence of seven years to be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of forty-two years. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that his convictions for especially aggravated kidnapping and aggravated robbery violate principles of due process; that the trial court erred by merging the aggravated robbery convictions into the especially aggravated kidnapping convictions; and that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentencing. The judgments of the trial court are affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Brenda Bowers
The appellant, Brenda Bowers, was convicted by a jury of theft of property worth less than $500 dollars. The trial court sentenced the appellant to eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days and ordered the appellant to serve six (6) months of the sentence in incarceration and the remainder of the sentence on probation. After the denial of a motion for new trial, the appellant appealed, presenting the following issues: (1) whether the State improperly introduced evidence of a prior bad act of the appellant; (2) whether the appellant received ineffective assistance of counsel; and (3) whether the trial court correctly sentenced the appellant. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Chris Edward Smith
Defendant, Chris Edward Smith, was convicted of the sale of less than 0.5 grams of cocaine, a Class C felony, and was sentenced as a Range III, persistent offender to ten years imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argues (1) that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction; (2) that the trial court erred in overruling Defendant's objection to the prosecutor's peremptory challenge of the only African-American prospective juror in the venire; and (3) that the trial court erred when it mistakenly informed the jury that Defendant was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant does not challenge his sentence on appeal. Following a thorough review of the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Jimmy Ray Rogers
The appellant, Jimmy Ray Rogers, was convicted by a jury of introducing contraband into a penal institution, possession of marijuana, and driving on a revoked license. He received a total effective sentence of nine years incarceration in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction for introduction of contraband into a penal institution and the length of the sentence imposed for that conviction. Upon our review of the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude that the appellant's conviction and sentence for introducing contraband into a penal institution should be affirmed; the appellant's conviction for possession of marijuana should merge into his conviction for introducing contraband into a penal institution; a corrected judgment should be entered reflecting that the appellant was found not guilty of possession of drug paraphernalia; and the appellant's conviction for driving on a revoked license should be reinstated. Therefore, this case is remanded to the trial court for sentencing on the appellant's conviction for driving on a revoked license and for correction of the judgments. |
Franklin | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Alfred William Smith
The defendant, Alfred William Smith, appeals from his 2004 McMinn County jury conviction of first degree premeditated murder, for which the trial court imposed a life sentence. On appeal, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the convicting evidence and the admission of state-sponsored testimony. Discerning no reversible error, we affirm. |
McMinn | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
William Lee Drumbarger v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner appeals the trial court's denial of his untitled petition, treated by the trial court as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Upon our review, we affirm the denial of habeas relief and further conclude that the petitioner's claim was not cognizable as a petition for writ of certiorari. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the habeas court, pursuant to Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals Rule 20. |
Davidson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Toney Jason Hale
The defendant, Toney Jason Hale, pled guilty in the Bedford County Circuit Court to three counts of burglary of an automobile, a Class E felony, and escape from a penal institution, a Class E felony. He committed these offenses while serving an effective ten-year sentence on probation for crimes committed in Marshall County. The defendant was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to one year, six months for each conviction, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, with the issue of consecutive sentencing to be decided by the trial court. After a sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered two of the three sentences for the burglary convictions to be served concurrently with each other but consecutively to the sentence for the third conviction. The trial court further ordered these sentences to run consecutively to his sentence for the escape offense and consecutively to his previous ten-year sentence, for an effective sentence of fourteen years, six months in the Tennessee Department of Correction. On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court erred by ordering consecutive sentences. We affirm the trial court. |
Bedford | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Prentiss Holloway
A Shelby County Criminal Court jury convicted the appellant, Prentiss Holloway, of aggravated robbery and attempted aggravated robbery, and the trial court sentenced him to consecutive sentences of eleven and five years, respectively, in the Department of Correction. In this appeal, the appellant claims that the trial court improperly enhanced his sentences in light of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and improperly ordered consecutive sentencing. Based upon the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. William Donald Smith
The defendant, William Donald Smith, pleaded guilty to three counts charging aggravated sexual battery, a Class B felony, and five counts charging child rape, a Class A felony. The plea agreement provided for the trial court to determine the sentences, except that the agreement provided that the aggregate sentence would not exceed 50 years and no more than one child rape sentence would be ordered served consecutively with any other sentence. The trial court sentenced the defendant to the following Department of Correction terms: for aggravated sexual battery, concurrent sentences of eight, 10, and 12 years, respectively; and for child rape, two sentences of 20 years each and three sentences of 25 years each. The trial court ran the two 20-year sentences concurrently to each other and to the aggregate 12-year sentence for aggravated sexual battery. It imposed the three 25-year sentences to run concurrently with each other but consecutively to the other five sentences, for a net aggregate sentence of 45 years. On appeal, the defendant challenges the trial court's sentencing determinations. After review, we affirm the judgments as modified. |
Montgomery | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Charles Henry Jenkins
The defendant, Charles Henry Jenkins, was convicted by a Sumner County jury of one count of possession of more than .5 grams of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver, a Class B felony, and one count of evading arrest, a Class A misdemeanor. He was sentenced by the trial court as a Range I, standard offender to ten years for the cocaine conviction and eleven months, twenty-nine days for the evading arrest conviction, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. The defendant raises the following issues in this appeal: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain his cocaine conviction; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding from his trial exculpatory tape-recorded statements made by the confidential informant involved in the case; and (3) whether the United States Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), precluded the trial court from applying an enhancement factor to increase his cocaine sentence beyond the minimum in the range. Following our review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. |
Sumner | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Albert Fitzgerald Turner
The Defendant, Albert Fitzgerald Turner, pled guilty to statutory rape and was sentenced as a Range I, standard offender to two years in the Department of Correction, suspended after sixty days of service. The Defendant now appeals as of right, contending that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him “judicial diversion.” Because the trial court failed to state adequately upon the record the basis for its refusal to grant judicial diversion, we vacate the sentence of the Defendant and remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. |
Haywood | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Keith Dotson
The defendant, Keith Dotson, was convicted of aggravated burglary. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-14-403. The trial court ordered a Range III sentence of fifteen years in the Department of Correction. In this appeal of right, the defendant argues that the evidence was insufficient and that his sentence is excessive under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Shelby | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Shawn Kelly v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Shawn Kelly, appeals the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief by the Dyer County Circuit Court. He seeks relief from two convictions for the sale of one-half gram or more of cocaine, a Class B felony, and his concurrent sentences of twelve and fifteen years. The petitioner was convicted by a jury of one drug offense and pled guilty to the other drug offense. He contends that he received the ineffective assistance of counsel in both cases, that he was denied his constitutional right to an impartial jury, that his guilty plea was not voluntary, and that the trial court erred in not allowing him to inspect the grand jury minutes relating to his indictments. We affirm the trial court’s denial of post-conviction relief. |
Dyer | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
State of Tennessee v. Billy R. Shelley
The Appellant, Billy R. Shelley, was convicted by a Sullivan County jury of theft of property over $1,000, a class D felony, and sentenced as a Range II multiple offender to eight years in the Department of Correction. On appeal, Shelley raises the following issues for our review: (1) whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict; (2) whether the trial court erred in ruling that his prior convictions, which expired more than ten years prior to this prosecution, were admissible for impeachment purposes; and (3) whether his sentence was proper. After a review of the record, the judgment of the Sullivan County Criminal Court is affirmed. |
Sullivan | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Andre L. Mayfield v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Andre L. Mayfield, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that: (1) he was improperly considered as a multiple rapist; (2) the trial court lacked the authority to sentence the petitioner as a multiple rapist without an indictment charging him as such; (3) the trial court lacked authority to modify the petitioner's original sentence; (4) the trial court failed to expressly state how the sentence in count five (5) would run; (5) the trial court improperly filled out the judgment form for count four (4); and (6) the judgment forms indicating that the petitioner was sentenced as a multiple offender with a release eligibility of thirty-five percent (35%) are improper. The trial court denied the petition. The petitioner appeals. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Johnson | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Donald Ray Eady, Jr. v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner was convicted of second degree murder in July of 1998. He appealed his conviction to this Court, and we affirmed his conviction. State v. Donald R. Eady, Jr., E2000-01152-CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL 1543472 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Knoxville, Dec. 4, 2001), perm. app. denied, (Tenn. May 6, 2002). The petitioner then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. The post-conviction court denied his petition. He appeals to this Court solely on the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. We affirm the judgment of the trial court. |
Bradley | Court of Criminal Appeals | |
Arzolia Charles Goines v. State of Tennessee
The petitioner, Arzolia Charles Goines, appeals from the trial court's order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The state has filed a motion requesting that this court affirm the trial court's denial of relief pursuant to Rule 20 of the Rules of the Court of Criminal Appeals. The petitioner failed to comply with the statutory requirements for pursuing habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, the state's motion is granted and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. |
Knox | Court of Criminal Appeals |
